According to the affidavit, the deputy secretary has put on record opinions on May 21, 2002, and October 10, 2002, by the then Attorney General of India, which categorically stated certain “indisputable facts” on the return of Jinnah house to Wadia.

Wadia is staking the claim on the grounds that she is Jinnah’s sole heir. She says the “Government of India had at no stage established that the alleged will was within the testamentary powers of the late M A Jinnah even if Muslim law were said to apply”.

According to the affidavit, the deputy secretary put on record a statement by the Attorney General that “the stand of the Government of India that Wadia is not the legal heir of the late Jinnah is legally unsound. It is based on the incorrect factual premises that Jinnah left a will and his sister was his heir.What is overlooked is the fact that in the absence of probate or any proof about the authenticity of the alleged will, the same could not be established or proved and cannot be acted upon. Thus, both under Hindu law and Muslim Shia law, Wadia being the only daughter on intestacy would be the sole heir of Jinnah and as such would be entitled to all his property, including Jinnah House.”

She said the additional affidavit of Deputy Secretary G Balasubramaniam also put on record, for the first time, the second opinion of the Attorney General which stated that “on account of subsequent developments and in particular the long lapse of time, there would be difficulties in the way of Wadia pursuing her legal remedies for enforcement of her legal rights...

“The return of the Jinnah House to Wadia with full rights of ownership would not be a feasible proposition. At the same time, it would be unfair to flatly reject her request. The solution would be to grant a long-term lease of Jinnah House to Wadia on suitable terms.”

Meanwhile, the descendents of Fatema Jinnah, to whom Jinnah House is bequeathed, have also intervened, staking a claim to Jinnah House on the grounds that she is the sole heir of Jinnah.